Yes, I'm so sorry to derail the "I hate that Hillary worshipers can argue literally everything because Hillary has sided with everything and nothing" discussion by pointing out that she has been entirely consistent throughout her career on this point. You don't even seem to disagree.

You can oppose a multipayer system without misstating the consistency of Clinton's position on it.

Obamacare was the attempt to build a multi-payer system - how did that go, hmm?

It would have gone much better with a strong public option and without the Supreme Court overturning the mandatory Medicaid expansion. Which is the plan Clinton ran on in 2008.

But if you can't tell the difference between something like the ACA (which taxed corporations and the wealthy to find insurance for millions of uninsured people, most of whom were lower income) and austerity cuts, then I don't think there's much discussion to be had here.

You appear to be confusing the standard for a motion to dismiss (the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true) with some sort of opinion offered by the court.

The judge did not "agree they were partial." (As an aside, you should learn the difference between partial and impartial) Rather, the judge was following the federal rules of civil procedure by accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true at the motion to dismiss stage.

If you have any interest in what the judge actually had to say about the issue (hint: the opposite of what you learned from Jared Kushner's Observer and Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire that you linked above), try to bottom of page 15:

For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.

You are ignoring the fact that the DNC lawyers argued it was their right to rig the primaries.

The DNC's lawyers argued (among many other things, as that's their job) that the DNC's pledge of neutrality was a political promise that no one would take seriously. As I said in my initial comment, the court explicitly rejected that argument.

Your repeated assertion that the DNC is legally free to "rig the primary" is complete nonsense.

That's not at all what the court ruled. In fact, the court explicitly rejected that argument.

Instead of citing three right wing sources (all of which are based on the nonsense published by Jared Kushner's Observer), try reading the actual decision. Also, learn some basics about civil litigation.

Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) may have violated federal law and House rules by sharing nonpublic information with investors of an Australian pharmaceutical company, the Office of Congressional Ethics alleged in a report released Thursday.

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), an independent entity that reviews allegations against House members, concluded in a report that there is “substantial reason to believe” Collins improperly shared nonpublic information in the purchase of Innate Immunotherapeutics stocks.

OCE also found reason to believe that Collins used his position as a member of Congress to pressure the National Institutes of Health to meet with Innate employees to discuss clinical trial designs, which would be a violation of House rules. Lawmakers are not allowed to assist entities in which they have significant financial interests.

There is "a substantial reason to believe" that Rep. Chris Collins violated federal law by touting the stock of an obscure Australian biotech firm based on inside information, while also possibly breaking House ethics rules by persuading National Institutes of Health officials to meet with a staffer from that company.

Those were the key conclusions of an Office of Congressional Ethics report released Thursday on Collins' relationship with an Australian biotech firm called Innate Immunotherapeutics.

Details:

According to the Office of Congressional Ethics report:

-- Three times in 2015 and 2016, Collins sent emails to potential Innate investors that included what appears to be private information about the company as well as publicly available information. By doing that, Collins may have violated the federal Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law barring insider trading among members of Congress, as well as House ethics guidelines.

-- In November 2013, Collins met with officials at the National Institutes of Health and asked that an NIH researcher meet with Innate's chief science officer to discuss possible clinical trials for the company's experimental multiple sclerosis drug. That could have violated House rules that bar lawmakers from taking official actions that would benefit an entity in which they have a significant financial interest.

McGowan says she had conversations with Affleck about Weinstein's mistreatment of her, in addition to Affleck stating he knew about Weinstein's mistreatment of others. Not everyone in Hollywood heard about it directly from a victim; we're not talking about Affleck hearing unsourced rumors.

As the NYT article says, "Ms. McGowan addressed the tweet to Mr. Affleck accusing him of omitting information in his statement." He may never have literally "seen" it, but his statement was misleading because it omitted that he knew about it.

She's not angry at Affleck for staying silent over the years; she's angry at him for feigning ignorance of Weinstein's misconduct in his statement this week.

The Times emailed Ms. McGowan to confirm that she was asserting that Mr. Affleck knew about Mr. Weinstein’s mistreatment of her because she had told him, and that she was accusing Mr. Affleck of lying because his statement did not acknowledge awareness of Mr. Weinstein’s behavior.

“I am saying exactly that,” she replied to The Times. She wrote nothing further.

It's easier to beat the No. 20000 league than the No. 200 league.
Giving bad teams/leagues easier matchups is a handicap.

Yes, it gives them the same 50% chance of winning--but why should bad teams/leagues have the same chance of winning as good teams/leagues? I could understand it if the bad teams/leagues were playing for lesser rewards (like playing easier modes in H2H), but it makes no sense when everyone's competing for the same rewards.